DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Swanson, 498 N.W.2d 435.

44 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    and the determination of what constitutes proper rebuttal evidence rests almost wholly in the discretion of the trial court.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota v. Albert Leroy Goranson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Albert Leroy Goranson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    See, (concluding district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence to rebut defendant’s testimony); Turnbull, 267 Minn. at 434, d at 161-62 (finding “no error” in district court’s admission of rebuttal testimony to clarify differing versions of events); State v. Stevens, 580 N.
  • State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    Rebuttal evidence is that which “explains, contradicts, or refutes the defendant’s evidence.”
  • State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
    -39 (Minn.1993) (explaining that the admission of tape recordings is preferable to solely admitting transcripts of those tape recordings).
  • State v. Larson 787 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2010
    -39 (Minn.1993) (explaining that use of tape recordings as evidence is preferable to reliance on transcripts of those tape recordings).
  • State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Swaney 787 N.W.2d 541 Minn. 2010
    We have explained that “[i]n general, rebuttal evidence consists of that which explains, contradicts, or refutes the defendant’s evidence.” accord State v. Walker, 306 Minn. 105, 112
  • State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Caine 746 N.W.2d 339 Minn. 2008
    Rebuttal evidence is evidence that “explains, contradicts, or refutes the defendant’s evidence.”
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Swanson 707 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Gutierrez 667 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Yang 627 N.W.2d 666 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Rebuttal evidence generally “consists of that which explains, contradicts, or refutes the defendant’s evidence.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Munger 597 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Munger 597 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    In a pro se supplemental brief, appellant argues that the imposition of a consecutive sentence unduly exaggerates the criminality of his conduct, , 340 n. 2 (Minn.App.1993) *574 ( for proposition that permissive consecutive sentence must not unfairly exaggerate criminality of defendant’s conduct).
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Greenleaf 591 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1999
    See Juarez, d at 292 ; (stating that such an error “is harmless ⅜ ⅜ * when no constitutional right was violated, another more damaging confession was properly admitted, and the officer could have orally provided the same evidence by using the tape as a refreshing memorandum”).
  • State v. Williams 586 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Williams 586 N.W.2d 123 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Stevens 580 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Stevens 580 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    b. Admission of rebuttal testimony “In general, rebuttal evidence consists of that which explains, contradicts, or refutes the defendant’s evidence.”
  • Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    Additionally, although multiple sentences are presumed to run concurrently, consecutive sentences are permissible if “commensurate with culpability and not an exaggeration of defendant’s criminality.” (permitting concurrent sentences if commensurate with culpability); see Minn. Sent.
  • State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Dominguez-Ramirez 563 N.W.2d 245 Minn. 1997
  • Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • Cox v. Crown CoCo, Inc. 544 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Branson 529 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Branson 529 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Halvorson 506 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
  • State v. Halvorson 506 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
    to argue consecutive sentences are permissive when a kidnapping *340 is one of the offenses sentenced.
  • State v. Sullivan 502 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Sullivan 502 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1993